This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Read responses to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Grigorian, R A Articles by Zarbin, M A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Grigorian, R A Articles by Zarbin, M A

Epiretinal membrane removal in diabetic eyes: comparison of viscodissection with conventional methods of membrane peeling

¹ The Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, NJ, USA
² Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, NJ, USA

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Marco A Zarbin, The Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, NJ, USA;
zarbin{at}umdnj.edu

Aims: To compare conventional methods of epiretinal membrane peeling with viscodissection.

Methods: 154 eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) that underwent pars plana vitrectomy with membrane dissection (89 traditional, 65 viscodissection) were studied retrospectively. Incidence of retinal breaks (RBs), length of time under anaesthesia, postoperative intraocular pressure, retinal reattachment rate, and final visual acuity (VA) were measured.

Results: To compare cases of similar complexity, a "complexity score" was defined. The average complexity score for cases done with and without viscodissection was 4.7 and 3.2, respectively. The mean frequency of RBs in eyes undergoing viscodissection was 0.43 (SD 0.5) v 0.14 (0.35) RBs/eye without viscodissection. In complex cases, the frequency of posterior/peripheral RBs was 0.31 (0.47)/0.13 (0.34) RBs/eye, respectively, with viscodissection v 0.12 (0.33)/0.23 (0.43) RBs/eye without viscodissection. None of these differences were statistically significant. The average preoperative/postoperative VA (logMAR) in the viscodissection cohort was 1.7/1.3 (range 0.3 to >1.9/0.1 to >1.9) v 1.4/1 (range 0.48 to >1.9/0.1 to >1.9) in the non-viscodissection cohort, among eyes with 6 months of follow up. Anaesthesia duration was significantly shorter for cases done without viscodissection (p=0.03), but cases done with viscodissection were significantly more complex than cases done without viscodissection (p<0.0001).

Conclusion: Viscodissection appears to be a safe and effective alternative technique in eyes with PDR. Owing to the retrospective nature of the study, additional studies are warranted.

Keywords: diabetes mellitus; epiretinal membrane; proliferative diabetic retinopathy; viscodissection; vitrectomy

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D McLeod Viscosurgery in diabetic vitrectomy Br. J. Ophthalmol., April 1, 2004; 88(4): 598 - 599. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D McLeod, M A Zarbin, and R Grigorian Silicone oil in diabetic vitrectomy Br. J. Ophthalmol., October 1, 2003; 87(10): 1303 - 1306. [Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters: